The bible is written in such a way

Does every man sin?

Don't forget Galatians 2:15 (CEV) = *We are Jews by birth and are not sinners like Gentiles.*

 

Yes, even Christians. So how do you explain the quotes from 1st John that you quoted?

 

Already explained. You just don't want to believe it. Two of every animal and bird, seven of every clean animal and bird. "Animals" and "clean animals" are not the same. Every Jew knows this, every person who knows anything about Judaism and the Mosaic Law knows this.

This "how many birds did Noah take" is a made up issue and only works for people who have a closed mind and refuse to read.

 

You and the Jews are biased concerning the Bible and I don’t buy your opinions. I expect the communication of a god to be indisputable and simple, which the Bible is anything but.

 

I understand your view on this Maat, but there is something that religionists refuse to face, and that is that the bible, like all such writings of all religions, present the message in fairly simple, if not consistent, language, so that those who are unable to accept the esoteric meaning will not be "offended" by the document, but behind the scenes, or between the lines, such writings contain the hidden, esoteric meaning. Religionists only see the literal words and their meaning, so they believe that a huge boat capable of carrying pairs of every animal and bird AND enough food to feed them, AND enough workers on board to clean each animal's stall each day, is somehow possible. They believe there was a tree in a special garden, and that tree bore a fruit that was capable of imparting knowledge to anyone who ate it.

They completely miss the symbolism hiding the esoteric meaning.

Those who understand this and see the hidden meaning that is "the meat of the word" know that there is no need for a god to "communicate clearly" because that means communication in concepts. But those who see the hidden meaning can also receive the teachings of the Inner Teacher, and that teaching is not given in the form of concepts. It is given by means of Being and therefore Knowing, but without any process of communicating. Rather, it is like seeing and comprehending both at the same instant. And so such people are often referred to as "Seers".

Once such a person sees, he can read the bible and all the hidden meaning is immediately obvious to him. In addition, some who possess the "spiritual awareness" and spiritual receptivity can receive esoteric teachings from Seers. But religionists are "offended" by it and reject it. The bible tells of all this but it, too, is hidden in the words.

 

The number of birds Noah took on the ark is indisputable and simply explained. You just refuse to accept the truth.

Its your choice whether to study or not, and whether to accept understanding or accept willful ignorance.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the

​

+non+stamp+collector+noah+ark&view=detail&mid=C3F690337F060CF676BFC3F690337F060CF676BF&FORM=VIRE

 

I am as of yet unsure what point you're trying to make here.

I'm not specifically assuming that you're trying to convince me as much as I'm assuming that you're trying to make yourself understood. I would assume that anything worth making a post about is worth making a clear post about.

As you say, a lot of this, you have said before.

I'm still struggling with one aspect of contingent/necessary being, although this is mostly an aside. Why must changing things be contingent? For instance, if God is necessary and created the universe, why couldn't he change as a response to the universe? If God consists of, among other things, emotion, doesn't the love God supposedly feel towards the world be considered a change in a necessary being?

But my main issue still has to do with epistemology. If you reject Hinduism and Islam and can't reject the Bible, why do you end up accepting the Bible, instead of concluding that none of the scripture includes reliable information, and the Bible just happens to be one that hasn't actively tripped any of your alarms?

For instance, let's say you're getting a bike from your mother for Christmas, your brother tells you it is yellow, your sister tells you it is red. Let's further say you know for sure that your mother would never buy you a yellow bike, because she thinks it's ugly. You can thus reject your brother's claim. Is the conclusion then that your sister is right, or is the conclusion that your mother hasn't told anyone anything (indeed if she had, your brother would have known the bike isn't red), and all information is, if not wrong, unreliable?

Furthermore, am I right in saying that you argue that volition/emotion/intellect cannot arise alone, but must arise from other things with those features, and at some point, that must lead back to either an infinite loop (which might seem implausible) or a necessary being?

If so, are you arguing that there is something fundamental about those which cannot happen by chance, or just that it is very improbable that they happen by chance? For instance, theoretically, a computer might happen by chance, consisting only of things which already exist, and it might emulate emotion, intellect and volition. Do you suggest that there is something about human volition/emotion/intellect which is distinct from that of a computer performing the same acts? If so, what is it? And if not, why couldn't it arise without a maker (of course in a more basic form than a fully functioning computer, to then be honed by evolution)?

I'm happy to elaborate, clarify or explain anything I have said. I don't write down anything I don't intend for you to understand, so any failure to understand is a potential resolution or piece of understanding missed.

That's not to say I think I'm an expert communicator, I happily acknowledge that I can't always put my finger on which parts will be hard to understand, so I'm happy to have those parts pointed out to me.

 

There are contradictions. Thousands of them. You just refuse to see them, because to admit their existence is proof of fallibility.

How did Joseph get to Egypt?

One story says Joseph's brothers sold him as a slave to a passing caravan.

Another story says Joseph's brothers threw him into a well, then left the area. Hours later, a passing caravan heard Joseph's pleas for help and rescued him from the well, then took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave.

Both stories cannot be true. One is false, the other may have happened.

How did the Hebrews acquire the town of Sheckem?

One story says they bought it, while another story says the tribes of Simeon and Levi murdered all the men in the town to get it.

One story is false, the other may have happened.

The so-called gospels of Mark and Matthew relate a story of Jesus casting out demons, who then inhabit a herd of about 2,000 pigs who then run and jump off a cliff into the Sea of Galilee.

The contradiction is that Mark claims Jesus cast the demons out of one man, while Matthews claims Jesus cast the demons out of two men.

Mark claims the pigs jumped off a cliff, while Matthew claims the pigs ran down a steep slope.

The other contradiction is that Mark claims it happened in a town about 30 miles from the Sea of Galilee, while Matthew claims it happened in a town about 5 miles from the Sea of Galilee. The King Joke Vision ignores that and claims it happened in a totally different town.

Regardless of which of the three towns it was, it's a straight shot to the Sea of Galilee, with no cliffs and no steep slopes.

None of the four men, Matthew, Mark, Luke or John are familiar with the geography of Samaria or Judah. They constantly get place names wrong, and constantly contradict each other on where events occurred.

More to the point, they aren't familiar with the laws and customs of Samaria or Judah, either.

Jesus allegedly says that if a woman divorces her husband and remarries, then she has committed adultery.

That is nonsensical, since women were never allowed to divorce.

Women were not allowed to divorce before Jesus lived, while Jesus lived or after Jesus lived, and that was true until the Muslims arrived in the 700s, and then women were still forbidden to divorce, and that remained true until the French took control of Syria and Lebanon, and the British obtained the Palestine Mandate after WW I.

The reason the gospel writers are unfamiliar with the geography, laws and customs of the region is because they were never there, so they can't be witnesses.

And, according to Luke, we're expected to believe that the Pharisees were awed by Jesus' quotations of the Old Testament?

Really?

Did you read those passages? Do you even have a clue what you're reading?

Nope.

According to Luke, Jesus is quoting from the Greek Septuagint, which has hundreds of mistranslations and contradictions from the Hebrew Codex Leningradis and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and most of the scripture quoted by Jesus is just plain wrong.

The Pharisees would not even be remotely impressed by some moron quoting the Greek Septuagint.

Get it?

The Pharisees don't read, write or speak Greek, because they read, write and speak Hebrew, and they don't give a damn about the Greek Septuagint, which was written for Greeks, not Hebrews.

A Jew quoting from a Greek text is tantamount to an American quoting from the Constitution of the Soviet Union.

 

There are objects and ideas that look the same no matter which way one looks at them; however, they are the very simplest of objects and ideas. Even still, it requires a minimum of three points of view to be able to confirm that an object or idea does indeed look the same no matter which way one looks at it. The ideas implied in the bible are not always simple. They are therefore best understood by synthesizing multiple perspectives, not too unlike what one does with blueprints. I can see contradictions in the bible from some points of view; however, when I keep in mind multiple perspectives, and synthesize them into a deeper more 'three dimensional' understanding of the bible, those contradictions evaporate.

I teach men masonry. These are almost always tough guys. They are often quite stubborn, stiff-necked and two dimensional in their understandings. One could call them shallow. I start off very early teaching them the lesson I outlined above. I do this by holding out my hand so that they can see the palm of my hand, four fingers and my thumb. While I can only see my thumb and the side of my index finger. Then, I ask them if they are aware that my hand looks very different to me than it does to them. Then I ask them if they want to argue about the true shape of my hand or if they want to learn what I know from my advantage.

The ability to synthesize multiple perspectives is a uniquely human skill; unfortunately, it is not a universal human skill.

 

They evaporate only in your mind, not in reality.

 

Reality being your mind?
They evaporate in my opinion. I form my opinions. You can get yours off of a shelf for all I care.
That's reality, Mircea.

 

Reality being the written text. You simply ignore the realities out of expedience and a refusal to admit that contradictions do exist.

Luke 3:35-36 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad

Genesis 11:12-14 When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters. When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber.

Both genealogies cannot be correct. One is wrong. You cannot admit that one is wrong, because that makes your bible and god fallible and is proof that the texts are not god-inspired.

 

Have you ever worked with blue prints or mechanical drawings of any type?

 

That's not relevant, unless you're suggesting those are the words of god.

 

The first thing one learns when one begins to work with mechanical drawings is that no one can build anything accurately from only one point of view. The next thing one learns is the difference between contradictory and complimentary. It would be as easy to claim that the pages of the bible are contradictory as it would be to claim that the pages of a set of prints are contradictory.

There is a big difference between the bible and the Word of God; the Word of God is tested.
The Word of God is implied in the bible, but it remains mere words in a book like any other words in any other book until those words are tested.

 

I think you will find the bible was not written down by any human being. It is the word of God and he has the publishing rights.

 

Thanks for the daily joke.

 

Anybody who says that has an agenda. It is meant to be interpreted the way the original audience would have taken it.

 

Yes I have an agenda. My agenda is for folks to use their own senses, reason, experience and reflection instead of letting someone else tell them what to believe.

 

So when it comes to physics, chemistry, medicine, etc. I am to "use my own senses, reason, experience and reflection" rather than listen to the experts?

 

Leave the goalposts alone, dood.

The OP is about The Bible.

 

The Bible is no different. You can't make it up as you go.

 

Confirming your position that The Bible is 'no different' than "physics, chemistry, medicine, etc." Is that what you're saying?

 

There is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied and what is inferred. "Because the bible says", amounts to nothing more of less that 'because I infer'. "Because the bible says", can only be employed by those who have not outgrown their first impression of what the bible says.